Petulant Politics

Or how to end up in a deeper morass.

I've been quiet lately on things political, but today I read what must be the most childish reaction to Obama's apparent win of the democratic nomination to be the candidate for president.

It seems people polled that are Hilary supporters are saying they will not vote for him.

Let's think about that folks.

You have one person that is more likely to pay attention to the bottom line of working americans, undo the tax breaks that shifted a lot of the load onto the middle and lower class while removing it from the wealthy and corporate entities, will work to extricate our troops from Iraq and get 'the war on terror' focussed on the right target. That seems the to be gist of the democrats contenders platform.

The other choice will for president says he doesn't believe in meddling in the economy and with a few tweaks to the current domestic policy will continue policies that so far have shrunk the middle class down into a lower class and the lower class into outright poverty.

He'll keep our troops in a country that has specifically said they want us to leave. At the cost of something like 40 billion dollars a month, while the economy spirals toward disaster and communities are being forced to cut back school and health programs to make ends meet.
That seems the to be gist of the republican contenders platform.

Are these Hilary supporters so petulant and so self obsessed that they'd rather see the republican take charge and continue to steer the country in the direction it has been heading for the past seven years? Really?

God, wake up. If you are at all concerned about your children, about your country, about the air you breathe and the water you drink and whether or not your progeny will be able to go to college then stop acting like over sized 5 year olds and do the right thing.

A Beethoven dud?!

Ok, so it's a quiet day.. and iTunes is playing random tracks.. along comes a tune by Ludwig Van B titled Wellington's Victory.. a rather pointy piece of music he wrote at the request of his patron to commemorate Wellington's defeat of Napolean at Waterloo.

So, I'm just a bit curious to see how it's reviewed on the net.. and I'm surprised at the utter lack of understanding the people that posted their ideas of what this piece was, everything from failed to a dud.

Let's first consider that Beethoven was no fan of the aristocracy, though he depended on them for his livelihood. Second let's consider that his view on war was dim if not vehemently opposed to them.

Now, take those two things into account and consider the piece he presented. It's one of the few pieces of music that requires Muskets and Cannons to be set up on either side of the audience, (at that time his patron and his court).

To be utterly blunt and Beethoven was, this piece was a musical gauntlet tossed into the face of anyone that thought the glorifying war and the deaths of thousands of men was a fine idea.

Beethoven first has you listen to the approaching drum corps of the opposing sides, the call of the two sides signaling their readiness to battle and then musically details the battle the anthems of the two nations involved in this little set to.. and then muskets firing, cannon shredding the ranks with grapeshot, exploding grenades and cannon balls, then the charge of the cavalry into the muddy morass of the battle field.. if you have any experience with war you get a good idea of the hell he's trying to portray.

Then, he gives you the 'pretty' version that his patron probably expected to hear.. and it's obvious if you have ears that he's essentially telling his patron what an ass Beethoven thinks he is for even thinking that the Battle of Waterloo should be commemorated.

So, it wasn't what the crowd expected.. but a dud? It does exactly what the composer intended, puts your right into the midst of the noise and smoke and chaos and then says.. 'Do you really think this is glorious?'.

And then he recaps with sardonic version of Britain's nation anthem.. just in case anyone missed his point. Failed? I don't think so, it may be that it wasn't pleasing to the court audience but then how many battle fields are pleasing? Give me a break.

Privacy?.. Ha!

I like the quote that roughly goes 'If you haven't done anything wrong why should you mind us looking over your shoulder?'.

That kind of logic leads one to believe that for the security of the public we should all live in glass houses. After all what have you got to hide?

Well, Wired® has a nifty report on how easy it is for the long arm of the law to reach out and sample any conversation you might have on any electronic device.

It appears that many of the liberties that the American Revolution was fought for to assure it's citizens have finally gone into the shredder all in the name of security.

Ben Franklin made a pointed remark concerning people that are willing to sacrifice liberties for security. Those words are just as applicable today as they were the day Ben uttered them.

It's a pity the people that swear to uphold the constitution of this nation are so willing to sacrifice what many generations of Americans fought and died for with so little regard for the consequenses.

Reality bites

I'm bemused and amused by the reports on the antics of the AG(x2*) and his leash holder when even their own team manages to cause them to slip on the banana peel we like to call reality.

I guess the administration is of the opinion that if you stick to your lies reality will yield the right of way.. kind of like the concept of using affirmations(**).

That or they never read that quote of Lincoln's regarding fooling people!


(* the Attorney General, he who's initials are also AG)
(** a concept endorsed by the New Age community, the belief being that if you create whatever it is in you mind and picture it clearly and then keep on wishing for it that desire will be fulfilled)

Memory check

Back in 1998 Will Smith and Gene Hackman starred in a movie titled Enemy of the State.

Most people that saw the movie thought it was far fetched and would never happen here in the land of the free. Anyone with their ear to the ground knew that the surveilance capabilities were getting close to those portrayed in the movie.

Nine years later this is no longer fiction, the only question that is being debated is how best to integrate it into every facet of 'law enforcement'.

Think I'm a crank just frothing at the mouth? Then have a read over here.

I've said it before elsewhere, Orwell just had the date wrong, otherwise he was scarily prophetic.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. anyone believe that's what our government is trying to deliver to the public.. or is it all down to the Gross National Product and corporate protectionism now?

Yes!

Ars Technica tells us the latest tale on the SCO Unix/Linux court battle.

Now if only such rulings would be applied to other bandits this country might actually start to resemble the America we, (alright, most of us), were all taught to believe existed.

Personally, I'm glad to see this nail being driven into this greedy corp's coffin *.


(* pun intended!.. oh suck it up!)

Whoa..wait a minute!

Is this the same Dick Cheney that's VP now?

Tell it!

I think that this post speaks for many of the people living on the planet currently.. and probably for a lot who have moved on!

Land of the not so free

You have the right to express yourself.. so long as we approve of you methods.

Truth, Justice & the American way

Here in the U.S. we like to believe that we're a just society and that our law enforcement agencies are 'true blue'. Sadly stories like this one point out the fact that in reality the founding fathers we absolutely correct when the said that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance*.




(*By that, they meant vigilance of the citizenry of their government(s) and it's various branches).

Hot air

Good ol' GW is at it again. According to US news outlets his new proposals on global warming marks a major change in policy but in fact he's just blowing hot air again.

Gotta protect those corporate profits, ehh George?

The Truth

Breaking News

Breaking News: Something Happening In Haiti

There are improvements!

That's what our fearless leader continues to claim in his press conferences when the issue of Iraq comes up.

But according to the Iraqi people the story appears to be very different.

One of the more glaringly obscured fact in this misadventure is the number of Iraqis who have fled their homes and the reasons they had to flee.

The linked story gives you some insight on a story the main news outlets never seem to touch upon.

When you read these peoples stories of their experiences and see what news on Iraq actually reaches the American public you begin to wonder just what improvements ol' GW is referring to.. I'd like to hear them.

Do they out weigh the ongoing carnage enough to warrant our contiued presence there?

Showdown!

The Dems are sticking to their guns to recall the troops.

But Bush says the Washington politicians shouldn't dictate how to fight the war, they should leave that to the men in uniform.. but wait a cotton pickin' minute there George!...

When and where did Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld get their combat experience what branch of the service were they in? Weren't they the ones that came up with the strategy for the invasion of Iraq?

And didn't one of them say that the Iraqi oil sales would pay for the war and rebuilding? Why are the american tax payers footing the bill to finance this fiasco you and your school chums got us into?

How long did they serve?

Where did you get your military expertise?

Weren't they both part of the political machine?

Aren't you?

I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind all the decision to remain entangled in an increasingly bitter conflict when it's clear that there will be no victory... no 'Mission Accomplished' any time in the next decade.

Thoughts on the DOJ debacle

I guess I'm a bit naive or wasn't really thinking about the department of justice as a political machine.

I had always thought that of all the branches of our government those that served they should hold to a higher standard. Apply themselves with honor and uphold the truth above all political considerations.

I had not considered or kept in my mind that the Attorney General is appointed by the president and in the same we he appoints state attorney generals that the president or his advisors favor.

In the past the congress of our nation vetted the AG and so there was the understanding that appointing one that would act as your de facto hatchet man wouldn't make it past them. That all changed when the last congress was sitting.

The checks and balances the people of this country thought or assumed were in place vanished and in turn whatever was deemed good by the administrative branch was deemed good by the legislature.

One of the AG's job is to tell the administrative branch of the government when they cross the line, not to write them a pass that allows them to do whatever they please.

Keep in mind that this AG said that coercive physical interrogations were legal and that the Geneva Convention was not relevant to the 'war on terror'.

Are the opinions rendered by the AG in keeping with our concepts of justice here in the United States? Or were they simply 'get out of jail cards' issued to the administration by the AG? It seems that the more light that is shone on the operations of the current AG, the more it looks like there's an attempt to fix in place a mindset in every state AG office one that follows the dogma issued by the same people that hold to the PNAC core belief systems.

Instead of diversity of opinion: One Opinion and only one philosophy.

Now there are some people in this country that may think a world with a mono-culture would be a great thing but if you look around the one thing you discover in a mono-culture is stagnation and decay. It would be a pity if that were to befall this country.

more improvements

Made some changes to Homefires navigation system.
Testing a new chat system, (it remembers your login).

That'll need some more feedback before we choose which we want to keep.

Some other under the hood work has been done. Users may or may not realise it ;)

Plame testimony follow on.

Ok, a mess of misdirection by the GOP on whether Ms. Plame was undercover has been hitting the sheets.

Well you can kiss the snow job buh-bye, Melinda Henneberger's report posted over on the Huffington Post from the hearing makes it clear just what the former operatives status was at the time her cover was blown.

You'll need to go down eight paragraphs to get to the meat of the subject, but once you've read through the account there should be no doubt as to the fact that she was in fact undercover.

Something that would have been easy to ascertain by the inner circle.

There's an amazing display of a lack of conscience by the people responsible for this leak. If they had any guts they'd publicly accept responsibility their lack of discretion and foresight and resign.. and turn themselves in for prosecution. But honor isn't something we've seen coming from most 'CEO' types in government lately.. most of the time it's duck and cover and oh yeah, "I can't recall..."

Memory loss

It's very scarey that we seem to elect people to the highest offices who's memory is hazy when it comes to recalling the genesis of critical policy decisions. Someone should buy them a PDA or the like.
Read the article.

Broken Promises

This article relates directly to my post earlier this morning and underscores it.